On Thursday, May 07 2015, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote: >> That is actually a pretty good solution! I am still learning the terms >> and the whole process here, but jessie-updates, according to: >> >> <https://www.debian.org/News/2011/20110215> >> (thanks to Cascardo for providing the link) >> >> would indeed be the ideal place for rnetclient, according to this >> criterion: >> >> - Packages that need to be current to be useful (e.g. clamav). > > I am well versed with stable-updates, I upload to it several times per > year due to intel-microcode. Unless there is previous arrangement with > the stable release managers, an upload to stable-proposed-updates it is > not always going to be fast enough for this. "keep current" doesn't > mean "rush into stable every time", after all.
Oh, sure, I did not mean to lecture you, I am well aware of your Debian fame. Sorry if it sounded like that. As for being fast enough, Receita Federal usually gives 2 months to prepare and submit your tax report, and the majority of the population usually wait until the last week to fulfill their duties, so maybe it is reasonable to expect that, if rnetclient enters the stable-updates repo in the middle of the timeframe of 2 months (i.e., 1 month after RFB published the proprietary versions of the softwares), we will still have plenty of users benefitted by this. Does this sound feasible? > IMHO, it would be far better to have someone maintain the debian > packaging of this stuff upstream, in a "apt-gettable" repository that > can be added to sources.list. Such a repository, although unofficial, > could be both Debian and Ubuntu-friendly, and target also the LTS > branches of Debian and Ubuntu. This side-steps all the issues I raised. It seems that the only remaining issue was deciding which repository would be a better fit for the program, and if the proposal of putting it in the stable-updates is accepted, then we're golden. I had considered the option of maintaining the Debian infrastructure upstream when I saw your first message (actually, even before I posted the ITP!), but I still think it is more beneficial to have rnetclient in the official repository. It would, for example, be much harder to be able to provide ports for different architectures just like Debian does but without using Debian's infrastructure; I could mention other "good to have" things as debbugs here, but I think you've got the point :-). Cheers, -- Sergio GPG key ID: 237A 54B1 0287 28BF 00EF 31F4 D0EB 7628 65FC 5E36 Please send encrypted e-mail if possible http://sergiodj.net/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/87r3qru9pi....@sergiodj.net
